Majority of you have played tactics and strategy games, but as for levels of abstraction, how much do people know? Levels of Abstraction: Using Go as and example, we should say that the square boards 6x6 or smaller are level 1 abstraction, boards 7x7 to 13x13 are level 2, boards 14x14 to 20x20 are level 3, and boards 21 to 26 are level 4 abstraction, because the territory lines define the level of abstraction. Level 1 Skirmish Skirmish is the simple short battle, that is you only need to know what is locally stronger. Level 2 Tactics VS Logistics Tactics is the ability to control battles, and logistics is the ability to micromanage. Tactics is the micromanagement of the units, and Logistics is the micromanagement of the resources. Level 3 Strategy Strategy combines Tactics and Logistics together into one. Many people do not understand the difference between strategy and logistics, but logistics is micromanagement of not battle related (ie supples, economy, etc.) and strategy is macromanament of both logistics and tactics (the micromanagement of units). Strategy is the macromanagement of both units and resources. Level 4 The level 4 abstraction is still not named. It is consider more abstract than any of the Grand Strategy that anyone talks about as that is still only another form of strategy. What is it in order to develop a true Generalship game, we have to train the players throught the first two levels of abstraction, and then move towards the three level of abstraction. Computers can only handle the first level of abstraction no matter how perfect it becomes, but players can perfect the second level of abstraction. The third level of abstraction has not been perfect yet. The fourth level of abstraction has not been discovered yet. I only know that it exist, just like how religious fanatics believe that God exist. The fallback of many strategy game for me is that they are only logistic games not "true" strategy. "True" strategy are difficult to play as there are lots of skills that need to be develop. "True" strategy is a game with a properly proportioned Tactics and Logistics. The reason why some players do not like too much micromanagement is because that is not strategy but logistics! Strategy = Logistics + Tactics! Without the elements of both logistics and tactics it is not strategy. Having to few of one will not be strategy. But it truth, strategy is the macromanagement not the micromanagement. Strategies are therefore not something that is done, but it is something we classify as a general instance of certain occurance. The same strategy may or may not work, even with the same player, becuase the same strategy does not tell you the exact moment in time to do things, the exact moment are tactics or logistics depending on wheather you are controlling units or resouces including both gathering and using the resource. A strategy would be create a template and all the commands will go out according to that strategy, but that is imposible. Developing a game of true Generalship is my goal. The first segment of the game is controlling a single character in first person [First Person Shooter may be a good start]. Then the second segement is adding a second character, and we slowly develop the player skills by increasing the unit slowly, from fireteam to platoon to company to battalion to regiment to brigade to division to corps to army and beyond. From the level of general to the level of marshal, towards the ruler of an empire, are the hardest parts. For a player to rule the empire, they have to be able to manage each and every individual soldier in their army, as well as the resources. [That is because players do not want the AI to handle anything because they believe they can do better, so the micromanagement becomes larger in many strategy games.] To manage millions of soldiers each individually is the task at the end, the level of marshals and higher. Generals will be able to manage 100,000 soldiers easily without any problem. The skill of the player is thus measure in comparision to real scales and then at such instances will players know what true strategy is when they are able to handle the brigade size unit of 5000 individuals and larger. Players that cannot handle this immense amount of management are not at the true level of strategy. [Of course, my words are very harsh, but this is reality of the military perspective. When you don't believe in those below you, and take command directly in your hands, you will find that there is too much to handle. That is why there are other officers there for you to manage the armies. So let the AI handle it or you will need to manage 5000 individuals on your own.] Summary: The design is to have players play from the bottom level up towards the level of generals and marshals, but they must remember to let their officers [the AI] handle their units or else they may find it imposible to handle a real scale army. A player's command skills is the number of men they can manage through their officers or directly if they so believe they are that much better and making decision. Controlling units: Players can control units at multiple levels. And they see the level fit for them. Control Levels: Individuals (1) - Private Firebuddy (2) - Private First Class Fireteam (5) - Sergeant Squad (30) - 2nd Lieutenant Platoon (80) - Lieutenant Company (250) - Captain Battalion (1000) - Major Regiment (3000) - Lieutenant Colonel Brigade (5000) - Colenel Division (20000) - Major General Corps (60000) - Lieutenant General Army (240000) - General With 12 levels of controlling their armies, this "may" be an ideal game to train strategy skills. There are lots of rank between sergeant and 2nd lieutenant, and these ranks are logistics ranks. That is Logistics is actually on the lower end of the spectrum in comparison to Tactics. Logistics is the lower end of level 2 and Tactics is the higher end of level 2 even though they are both micromanagement, but because tactics is related to the lives of soldiers that it has to be rank higher. After all, real soldiers are irreplacable in comparision to supplies. But I still have concern for developing a Real Time Strategy. My main concerns are: I. Balance of Tactics and Logistics. II. Balance of Units and Technology. (notice that I, and II are different but related) III. AI "cheat" to balance to player's skill becuase AI can only do skirmish level abstraction (level 1), while players can do tactical, and strategic level abstraction (level 2 and 3). Edit: I estimated [actually hypothesize] that you will need 1GB RAM for every 500 character at both the server and client side since the server need to keep the data, and the client need the data of those in the same field that they are on. The map will have to either divide the place up to small parts, or we will need to have each player owning their own supercomputer. [Edited by - Platinum_Dragon on April 2, 2009 9:20:21 PM]

Quote:

Original post by Platinum_Dragon Computers can only handle the first level of abstraction no matter how perfect it becomes, but players can perfect the second level of abstraction.

I have to take exception to this. Tactics, the second level in your definition, is the strength of computers. A tactical situation starts in a certain state. Based on the decisions made it may progress to a number of other states. Supposing that each potential state can be evaluated, it is possible to search the state space for the best possible outcome of any decision.

This is basically how the AI in chess programs behaves, and with faster computers that allow searches of a huge state space, the computer is effectively flawless at tactics. The only way human players can compete is to move up to the third level and use strategies that eventually force the computer into tactical situations in which there is no good outcome.


Anyway, about the game...

True strategy games are so rare. Every RTS claims that they are a game of strategy but I have yet to encounter one that goes much beyond tactics. I think the problem is that constraint of real time play forces players to focus on tactics, and follow some simple strategies like build orders.

You didn't cover whether you want to do real time or turn based. In my opinion, if you want a game of "true strategy," you need to do turn based, especially when managing resources on the scale you describe.

Hi,

I don't think you should start your post with that Go example. Because in that example there is no difference in abstraction. The difference is only the boardsized. In a 4x4 board, the player places stone. In a 20x20 board, the player is still placing stone. The two stones are places in the same board following governed by the same set of rules. There is not difference in their level of abstraction toward a "siege". Both stones are at the same level of abstraction in representing "fortification".

The level of abstraction of a system refers to how data is represented. I think you topic is actually difference in scope.

Computer can handle higher level scopes using abstraction. The meaning of abstraction here, means, precisely, that the computer, for example, only needs to consider the Hitpoint of a Nation and the AtkPoint of itself to decide whether it wants to attack a Nation. The computer needs to understand nothing about how the war is conducted--it does not need to know that the war is fought with soldiers instead of bunnies. That is the meaning of abstraction. The abstraction is good if it is sufficient to make decisions in its competitive environment.

So in way "abstraction" means, you are saying that you want to let the player experience Generalship by disallowing the player's initial option to play the game at a high level of abstraction. You are saying that a player playing a command must know that his attack power comes from soldier and not bunnies, and you want the player to have been a soldier and have been shot at on a battlefield before he could lead. I don't have a problem with your design goal, I was just trying to clarify something about the wording.

A way you could describe how AI sucks at certain situations is that the AI lacks a way to abstract the situation. For example, while it is easy for a programmer to code the HP for a soldier, it is hard for the programmer to a way to calculate the "HP" of a nation when the conflict it simulated at the gunfight level.

So for each increase in the Levels you mentioned, the AI requires another level of abstraction to keep up with the human player if the AI cannot handle the brute force simulation. But if the AI could brute force it, it does not need any abstraction. In terms of logistics, I don't think that a person could do better than an AI. Note that if the AI outgames a player in resource management, the AI could easily outgun a player without any fine-grain tactics or strategies.

[Edited by - Wai on March 29, 2009 10:40:42 PM]

In order for true strategy, turn base does not work. You need real time in real scale. That is the time limit is in monthes per turn in a way to speak. Having a turn that has a time limit of like say a month is still timed based and not turn based. What needs to occur is a limit of time to real world constraints that occur in real situtations. In real situations, you will have monthes to decide something, but in most games, that decision is in a few moments. What needs to occur is this real time constraints, of having the proper time scale. On the scale that I describe, it is posible to manage without turn base because real people have always handle the situation and have no problems with it. If you cannot have real Generalship, then it is true that you lack skills. Remember why the larger units have administrative tasks. Why they have lower officers to help them maintain for them. If you control everything and try to be God, then of course you will have problems, but most players try to be God instead of trying to be a General. In other words, players keep thinking they do better than the AI, but they must know that there are too many things to handle and that the AI is there to help the player handle the situation. Like true Generalship, you will have to trust your officers to handle the task so that you do not do everything. A true general only commands those directly below them, not someone so much lower than them in rank. That is the chains of commands. Something that most players cannot comprehend.

As for Go, I am not incorrect in the sence that you are not looking for the "Hands of God" that is perfection of the game. When you look for the perfection of the game, you will in a sence notice these levels of abstraction. That is why the professionals still do not understand the dynamic of even the 21x21 board. They cannot understand it at all because it is outside the scope of strategy. It is in a way, tactics is what happens, strategy is what will occur in chains of events in a general sence not specifically what happens, but what happens generally. It is in the sence that tactics is so called what you learn on the smaller boards. The skirmish is when you learn how to capture pieces. You think that the stones represents forts, but that is incorrect. To be abstract to the point where they do not represent such things. The shape of multiple stones are just shapes. I refer to the level of game play and not the representation of the pieces. The way you have to think and formulate the most effective path to win in Go is the levels of abstractions that I have refer to. You have to take it from the highest level and down. A top down view versus the bottom up view. The top down view shows that there is in a sense something that is even more abstract that what you can call strategy, and this so call abstraction I gave it a level to help you understand that it exist, but that you do not have the calibre to try the game of Go at larger boards that 20x20. Even the professional Go players cannot define this word yet, for there is not a war in history that is of a scale large enought to use another word beyond strategy because there isn't a demand for something higher than strategy. You will know that strategy, tactics, and skirmist have moments of overlap, but you have to also know that they are distinguish by a solid line. To see the black and white of the difference is so difficult for many people, but it is the way you think for the next move that determines the level of abstraction of the move itself. Certain moves are strategic moves while others are tactical. Why it Go do they have the first few moves scatter across the board? It is for strategic development because strategy comes first, follow by tactics that defines the midgame. Skirmish is the end game where all of the ko-fights occur. The ko-fight can be said to be the skirmishes. Shapes are tactical formations, and the entire board is strategy. The player to know when to use the three levels end up winning the game, but they must first know when to switch from strategy to tactics. The first few stones are placed at certain areas at the beginning of the game for strategic reasons. It is normal that each player takes two starpoints in a line manner at the beginning of the game because the crisscross gives the first player a larger advantage. The first stone already claims the entire corner, and thus it is very efficient. As the game goes on, the player whom maintain the higher efficiency win the game.

Resource management is Logistics Skills, a Level 2 skills. I didn't notice this earlier. But the AI does not have any better of Logistic skills as the player. If a player has better tactical skill, then they should have better logistical skill. If you play any of the Total War series, then you know that if you can kill more than autoresolve, then you have better tactical skill.
Tactical and Logistic skills are of the same level, so in a sense it is similar to how some people are not good in math but good in language, and some the other way [like me who is good in math but not in language] when both math and language are just different methods of logic. It must be something missing that cause them to believe in one form of logic and not the other. <br><br>Edit:<br>I would now agree that Level 2 [Tactics and Logistics] would be the strength of the computer, and that when the computer master Level 3 [Strategy], there won't be a player that can ever beat a computer game anymore unless the computer goes easy &#111;n the player. Level 4 is still being developed by humans, but they have still not learn of this yet.<br><br>Edit:<br>I'm getting a little too thick minded right now. I will need to look back at those replies again.<br><br><!–EDIT–><span class=editedby><!–/EDIT–>[Edited by - Platinum_Dragon on March 29, 2009 10:26:49 PM]<!–EDIT–></span><!–/EDIT–>

Hi, I am not against your view. This is just a conversaion where wavefronts are superimposing. The wave might bounce and resonant but the water is not suppose to spill off the table.

In terms of Go, I don't think the level of abstraction is different in each boardsize. Here, I am using your perspective of level of abstraction. What you have been describing, is the required understanding of Go in order to play the game competitively on each boardsize. But the fundamental set of abstraction is the same for each boardsize. The following is an analogy:

x + 1 = 3, what is x?

Suppose in the context of this problem, two choices are provided:
a) x = 1;
b) x = 2;

For one who does not know how to do algebra, one could use brute force to try both choices and determine that b is the correct answer. At this point, we notice that to solve this problem, knowledge of substitution is sufficient. However, this does not change the fact that the identity of problem is a problem of algebra. You don't need to know algebra to solve it because there are so few choices, this situation is analogous to that of a 4x4 Go game. The board is so small, the choices so few, that a player does not need to know algebra to play the game. But this does not change the identity of Go being not merely a substitution game.

In your reference to Go, you expressed people's acknowledgement that Go is not a substition game. They see this as the boardsize increases. Go is in fact a Hands of God game as you would describe it, it only looked docile in small boardsizes where merely the Fingernail of God is sufficient to play it competitively.

The identity of Go is that it is a game of territory control, with an additional concept that a territory is only valuable if it is alive (can breathe). The objective of Go is to control the largest breathing territory. In the beginning of the game, when a player places a piece in France, it makes little sense to place your piece in Italy when you could place on in Asia and symbolically say, "Yes, take Europe, I take Asia." Of course, simply sticking a flag in Asia does not mean that you control it since it can be invaded. Suppose your opponent place the next flag at northern India. It could symbolically mean, "Nope, you don't get the whole Asia, I will take a bite too." Then you place a piece in Turkey and symbolically say, "Nope, I don't fear you, I am going to surround you and claim the entire Asia for myself." The opponent says, "Oh is that so, I don't believe that you could fight me in India. I will take the Americas." "Fine, I take Africa."

It kind of sounds like Risk doesn't it? The point is that the player won't fight in the beginning because there is so much land, it is not worth fighting. A piece you use to fight on a battle field could have secured a much larger piece of new land. On a 4x4 board, you don't get this level of thought because the board is so small it is like a zoo cage. It becomes a fight or die situation.

Nonetheless, this strategy can be understood by anyone conceptually once you see that Go is not about capturing stones, but about control of breathing territories. It is merely a misconception that Go is about capturing stones that some beginners have. No one ever said that Go is about so, but that is what they see at first glance.

So that is the conceptual identity of Go as a game. Anyone can understand the concept. The concept does not change even if it is a 1000x1000 board. However, experience is require for a player to make sense of the following questions:

1) Do you know how to defend a territory when someone attacks you? (New players don't and must first learn that in smaller boards)

2) Do you have a good sense territory near your flag belongs to you or your opponent? (New players don't and they learn this on 9x9 and 13x13 boards).


In conclusion, I don't think that any board larger than 20x20 is fundamentally different. On that boardsize, the full identity of Go is already present. The difference can only be that some player had only adapted at playing on 19x19, with styles and rules that the player themselves cannot explain. Therefore, if the board is larger, they need to readjust and rid of their shortcut habits on 19x19. Fundamentally, strategically, conceptually, larger boardsizes are the same game. But increasing the boardsize can still let a player see that perhaps they had not mastered the generalized Go.

How do you define the difference between micromanagement of resource and macromanagement of resource? In the following situations, which is micro and which is macro?


S1) Your general tells you that ally C needs help and that he had sent some packages to aide them.

S2) Your general tells you that ally C needs help, you click on a button to aprove helping C by sending some packages.

S3) You need to send some packages to help C. You know there are two possible paths, so you told your general to choose a path and send it.

S4) You want to send some packages to help ally country C. There are two paths P1 and P2. You believe that P1 is a more risky route so that you told your people to transport the packages through P2.

S5) You need to send some packages to help C. You know that there are two paths, but P2 is unknown to your general (as in the AI would not pick that path). Therefore you manually showed your general the way using way-points

S6) You need to send packages to C. Your general does not know the alternative path. You use way-point to control the mule across the border using the secret path.

S7) You need to send packages to C. Your general does not know the alternative path. You walked across the border yourself and smuggled the packages to C.

Suppose the package happens to be a warhead to replenish the last one that C used. No one would expect C to have one more warhead. What type is your decision to send the warhead to C? Is it strategical, tactical, or logistical?

Suppose you group is engaged in a gun fight. Your buddy A across the street is out of ammo but could have a clear shot at an enemy. You could radio soldier B to toss him remaining ammo to A without the enemy knowing. When you tell B to do so, is that a tactical or logistical decision? What if you throw your own ammo to A? What if you only radioed B and told him to "help A!" and B noticed that A is out of ammo and give A his own ammo?

The general sense is strategic. Helping out C, as you put is the strategy. How the strategy is implemented is tactical or logistic depending on wheather it is managing resources versus combat orientation. There is not any true clear cut to the line because everything is relative to something, and thus you cannot make complete distinction. The distinction occurs when a person wants to distinguish the problem, but the actions taken is still micromanagement when you have to handle the waypoints yourself. Strategically would be when you just comply that the help will occur, but not really doing anything.

Strategy is when you think of the situation, and see that the alternate route is better. Tactics is when you set the waypoints itself.

Let say a math problems. First you identify the problem type (strategy). Then you implement your tools (tactic). A simle problem of your example could be to move 1 over to the other side, or subsitute,
x + 1 - 1 = 3 - 1
depending on how you view the problem (strategy) you still get the same result. The path you take is tactics, but the thought that make that decision is strategy.

Different than what you think, you can solve some calculus problems with only algebra if you find the proper pathways, but you have to know that to do so would be very tedious, and therefore we use new methods to solve harder problems. Finding the squareroot of two by hand is not a difficult task, but you will have to be able to estimate close to it in the first place to even be able to calculate it by hand.

The claiming of territory at the beginning of the game is to say having a different dynamic than the midgame or late game. These differences in dynamic is visually shown and are comparable to distinctive levels. The distinction between macro- and micro- management is the unit size. At 30 to 3,000 is the definate micromanagement level, and at 5,000 to 500,000 is the macromanagement level. Anything above 500,000 will be grandstrategy, but we do not know this boundary to the next level.

In the gun fight situation, "help A" is the strategy, but who would use abstract commands. All commands are to be exact, that is to have the most details in the shortest amount of words necessary to be efficient. Telling to give ammo to A would be the appropriate choice, that is Tactical/Logistical commands are use to execute strategy.

What you need to see is the Generalization above Generalization. The lowest level of generalization is called strategy. The generalization of generalization is grandstrategy. Above that is a generalization of generalization of generalization ... ! The further you generalize, the more abstract the concept becomes, and thus is how I call the Levels of Abstraction.

Remember how you learn to add? You don't just have to understand the concept of adding, but you have to do the adding yourself. That is, the strategy cannot be done without tactics/logistics. The strategy is something that you learn, but it is not something that you do. It is only the speaking of the general things you do. That is why, when some players ask you help, other players say do in this order that order, but those other players could not get the situation because you cannot understand strategy without being able to apply the strategy. The Application of strategy is tactics/logistics. Like when you learn to add, you have to do the adding first, before you get the general sence of what adding is. That is even if you know the strategy, you cannot teach strategy without forcing the player to grind tactics/logistics themselves for them to understand strategy. Teaching strategy is harder than teaching them the tactics/logistics first. Let them be accustom to the grind, before generalizing the commands.

Say you attack city B from city A, and there are three paths. Of course most players would choose path 1 the shortest path between the two cities, but another player may choose path 2, and slightly longer path that is hidden, or path 3 a very long path that can take the enemy by suprise. The strategy would be use xyz units to attack city B. The tactics is the choice of the path and the formation of the units while travelling along the path, and the outcome when the units encounter, what formations will you use when the two armies meet?

To know what you will do next, and to have a flow of only reactions of what your thoughts and the current situation is the goal. You want it so that all situation is predicted exactly in the general sence like what you want to occur and therefore you can execute multiple commands in flow without problems. The only way to ensure that is to make slight adjustments base of the difference between the current situation and ideal situation in your mind, and these moment difference is tactics, and the general flow of your commands that you can take continously without interuption is strategy. Everytime your series of command gets interupted, you will switch to tactical mode, but after that you will return to strategic mode when you can maintain a flow of commands that you can do without getting any interuption. Interuptions are the differences of the current situation and the anticipated situation that requires rethinking. That is a strategy once in flow does not need rethinking. The moment when you find that you need to rethink, then you are playing tactically.

In your example:

Quote:

Say you attack city B from city A, and there are three paths. Of course most players would choose path 1 the shortest path between the two cities, but another player may choose path 2, and slightly longer path that is hidden, or path 3 a very long path that can take the enemy by suprise. The strategy would be use xyz units to attack city B. The tactics is the choice of the path and the formation of the units while travelling along the path, and the outcome when the units encounter, what formations will you use when the two armies meet?

Suppose a player chooses to attack using only unit type x and leave y and z at the base. Is this choice of the composition of the attack party tactics or strategy?

If it is a strategic choice, why is this choice of the composition of the attack party different from selecting the formation of the party, which is a tactical decision?

If it is a tactic choice, is it still true that the choice to use xyz together to attack City B is strategy, but to use x alone is a tactic?


Let A, B, C be city-states located on one line geographically in the order listed. You are A. Your objective is to rule the world. You have one and a half warheads. The half warhead will be completed in a month. To attack a city-state, you push the button to lauch the missile. Your advisor gives you two choices:
1) Befriend C and attack B first, then attack C next month.
2) Befriend B and attack C first, then attack B next month.

Is the difference between the two a matter of strategy or tactics?

Let P, Q, R be three tanks sitting in an urban landscape. P is a tank on your side. Q, and R are enemy tanks. R is farther than Q. You are a commander sitting at a command vehicle that is not P. Your second-in-command gives you two choices:
1) Tell P to hide from R and shoot at Q, then shoot R.
2) Tell P to hide from Q and shoot at R, then shoot Q.

Is the difference between the choices a matter of strategy or tactics?


What do you think about the follow definitions (in the context of military conflicts):

Startegy: Management of objectives to achieve an objective
Tactics: Management of actions to achieve an objective
Logistics: Management of resources to enable an action

The point becomes [based on your definition], where do we differential between action and objectives. Is it action to attack B or C first, and then the other, or is it action. Therefore the objective and action are alike, and therefore we cannot differential the difference between strategy and tactics. It is better to give situation in detail perspective to help others to differential strategy and tactics. When communication is well like modern times with radios, the distinction between strategy and tactics blurs even further. In both cases, it seems reasonable to choose choice 1, but we need further details to ensure that choice one is the best choice.

In the three city-stats situation, you will always want to ally with one whom is far away, so that you will not get early conflict, but there may be instance where you will do elsewise.

In the second situation, because all of you are in urban landscape, if is better to hide from R and attack Q because playing hide and seek is needed to survive. If you hide from Q and attack R, you will end up in a different position, of that which R tells Q you position and because Q is closer to you, Q will be able to attack you if you attack R. But the case is that the units are tanks, so it becomes irrelevant what you do because tanks can shoot accross the city easily, and therefore as soon as you confront one tank, both tanks will be able to shoot you if they are allied. Afterall, the tanks main cannon can shoot 5 km so you will know that if all of you are in the urban landscape, then you are not that far apart, as most cities are about 5 km diameter, anywhere in the city can shoot anywhere else in the city. There is nowhere to run or hide. Your unit have to be able to dodge two weapons and attack at once. That is essentially a real world application. Your situation is given in realistic terms, than my answer must use realistic description to comply.

Edit:
Essentially a tank is a unit of 3 to 5 men (tank crew), that work together to control the tank. The tank commander is usually of 2nd Lieutenant in rank, where 2 tanks make a section, and 5 tanks make a platoon of tanks. The rank of officer is company officers (junior officers), and therefore, they like the field officers (senior officers), all command at the tactical level with elements of strategy. Some places define a level of "Operation" between tactics and strategy, and under that mechanics, Company officers use Tactics, Field officers use Operations, and general officers use Strategy. The elements of the higher levels are still there. That is, within tactics, there will be elements of strategy, and in strategy, there will be elements of tactics.

The first situation is therefore a national scale, and therefore, defined as grand strategy. The second situation is at squad level and therefore at the boundary of skirmish and tactics, but because the officer is of company grade, the situation promotes to tactics.

The following continues the attempt to differentiate between strategy and tactics. :

Objective: A condition understood by a decision-making agent

Action: An interactive force an agent exerts with effects governed by the environment

There are several clear distinctiion between an Objective and an Action. For example, an Objective is something that an agent could change at will, but it is not always true for an action. Suppose there is a gap so you jump over it. While you are in midair, you notice that you left you bag behind. At that moment, your objective could change, but you might not be able to change your action because you can't change your momentum in midair. The effects and whether the agent can perform that action are governed by physics.

What do you think about this set of definitions:


Vision: Choice of an Objective given a Situation

Leadership: Management of an Objective given a Situation

Strategy: Choice of Relations to achieve an Objective

Diplomacy: Management of Relations to achieve an Objective

Tactic: Choice of Objectives to achieve an Objective

Command: Management of Objectives to achieve an Objective

Manoeuver: Management of Actions to achieve an Objective

Logistic: Management of Resources to enable an Action


The difference between Choice and Management is that you could issue an order (a choice), but your subordinates may not follow the order. Management a set of action you do to make the suborinates follow your choice.


In this definition, the three-city-states situation poses a decision on strategy, because it concerns the relations that Nation A chooses to have toward B and C. The tanks situation is a matter of Tactics, because the commanders cannot change the relation that Q and R are enemies of P.